IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Satish Chandra Sharma, Subramonium Prasad, JJ.
Arnav Tyagi (minor) Through His Natural Guardian - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Anr. - Respondents
LPA 499 of 2022 & CM Appl. 38070 of 2022
Decided On : 28-09-2022
Reservation - Admission to Rashtriya Military School - Army Order 6/2007/GS and GoI, MoD (Army) letter No. A/ 84019/CGC-2020/GS/MT-15/III/39/US (SSC)/D(GS-II) dated 18.01.2021 - Judgment Aryan Raj Vs. Chandigarh Administration & Ors. and judgment Anmol Bhandari (Minor) through his father /natural guardian Vs. Delhi Technological University - Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995
Fact of the Case:
The Appellant, son of an Ex-Serviceman, sought reservation for admission to Rashtriya Military School due to his father's physical handicap, but was not called for the interview as he did not qualify the admission test.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that in the absence of specific reservation for wards of Armed Forces personnel who have been invalidated due to disabilities, the Appellant cannot claim entitlement to be called for an interview as a matter of right.
Issues: The issue was whether the Appellant, as the son of an Ex-Serviceman invalidated from service for being physically handicapped, was entitled to reservation for admission to Rashtriya Military School.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court found that there was no specific reservation for children of Armed Forces personnel who have been invalidated due to disabilities, and therefore, the Appellant could not claim entitlement to be called for an interview as a matter of right.
Final Decision: The LPA was dismissed, and pending applications, if any, were disposed of.
JUDGMENT
Subramonium Prasad, J. - Aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 2604/2022, the Appellant seeks to challenge the said judgment by filing the instant LPA.
2. The facts of the case reveal that the Appellant is the son of an Ex-Serviceman, who was serving in the Indian Navy and was invalidated from service for being physically handicapped.
3. It is stated that the Appellant appeared in the examination for Army Public School, Dhaula Kuan, New Delhi. According to the Appellant, he had qualified the exam but he was not called for the interview.
4. It is stated that despite sending representations to the Respondents, no reply was received by the Appellant and, thereafter, the Appellant approached this Court by filing a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) 2604/2022 with the following prayers:-
'i) To direct the respondents to consider the petitioner admission after granting him reservation as per judgment Aryan Raj Vs. Chandigarh Administration & Ors. and also in the light of judgment Anmol Bhandari (Minor) through his father /natural guardian Vs. Delhi Technological University, the vacancies of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe and the petitioner to be given benefits of ex-serviceman (physically handicapped's son/SC/ST); ii) To direct the Respondents grant reservation to the physically handicapped persons/ or their wards'
5. The learned Single Judge by way of the judgment impugned herein held that since the Appellant failed to qualify the admission test, he was not called for the interview. The learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ petition vide Judgment dated 13.07.2022.
6. Learned counsel for the Appellant has taken this Court through a policy decision taken by the Government of India regarding reservation of seats for admission to Rashtriya Military School for the Entitled Category, and submits that 70 per cent seats of Entitled Category are reserved for wards of JCOs/OR of Army and their equivalent in Navy and the Air Force.
7. Learned counsel for the Appellant has further drawn the attention of this Court to the Notification dated 21.05.2018 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Defence for reservation/preference to the wards of Armed Forces personnel for admission to Medical/Professional/Non-Professional Courses and states that there is specific reservation for wives of defence personnel disabled in action and boarded out from service, defence personnel disabled in service and boarded out with disability attributable to military service. He states that there are reservations for wards of Armed Forces personnel killed in action during war and peace with death attributable to military service. He states that there must be reservation for wards of Armed Forces personnel who have been invalidated from service/physically handicapped. According to him, unless such reservation is not granted, wards of such Armed Forces personnel having been invalidated from service will never get an opportunity of coming up in life.
8. The Appellant has also placed reliance on the judgment dated 12.09.2012 passed by Division Bench of this Court in Anmol Bhandari v. Delhi Technological University, W.P.(C) 4853/2012 and Order dated 08.07.2020 passed by the Apex Court in Aryan Raj v. Chandigarh Administration & Ors., Civil Appeal No.2718/2020.
9. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Respondents, contends that the Appellant did not qualify in the Class 6 entrance examination for admission to the Rashtriya Military School, and, therefore, was not called for the interview. She submits that the Rashtriya Military Schools function under aegis of the Ministry of Defence and the admission to these Schools are governed by Army Order 6/2007/GS and GoI, MoD (Army) letter No. A/ 84019/CGC-2020/GS/MT-15/III/39/US (SSC)/D(GS-II) dated 18.01.2021.
10. The learned Counsel for the Respondent states that under the reservation of seats to be filled in Rashtriya Military schools through Common Entrance Test, 70 per cent o
In the absence of specific reservation provisions, entitlement to reservation for admission cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
No reservation exists for the children of Armed Forces personnel invalidated due to disabilities for admissions, based on current policy frameworks.
The court affirmed that cut-off marks in recruitment processes are valid and do not require separate provisions for Ex-servicemen.
Candidates participating in a selection process cannot later challenge its fairness based on unfavorable outcomes, as established by prior Supreme Court rulings.
The classification between Armed Forces and Central Armed Police Forces for admission reservations is constitutional, as it is based on reasonable differentiation and does not violate equal protectio....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.